ABSTRACT
Social history represents ‘both a set of topics and an approach’. In the former, social history treats two broad subject areas that conventional history has largely ignored. ‘First, it deals with ordinary people rather than the elite.’ ‘Common folk’ possess a Vibrant past and contribute to larger historical processes’ (Stearns, 1983, p. 4). The beauty of social history therefore lies in how it alters the priorities of the historical record: ‘The great and the famous cause less than we used to think, while ordinary people cause more.’ (Stearns, 1983, p. 6). Until recently these people appeared to be ‘relatively inarticulate’, with few speaking or writing ‘as a matter of public record’; they remained invisible. Second, social history uncovers and analyzes ‘ordinary activities, institutions, and modes of thought’ (Stearns, 1983, pp. 4, 5). In this regard, the American brand of social history, more than its French or British counterparts, has tapped sociological concepts like gender, race, class, and ethnicity (Zunz, 1985, p. 59). Thus, social history seeks to recapture the culture of the majority of the people, not just of leaders and aristocrats, studies how they created it, and investigates its impact. As an approach, social history stresses the ‘unfolding of a process’ rather than emphasizing conventional events-unless, of course, an event represents the cause or effect of a profound change in the way people behave. Consequently, social history, unlike its conventional counterpart, usually follows no prescribed periodization, that is, it focuses solely on change, overlapping traditional chronological periods or defying them altogether. Social history also dwells on ‘individuals as illustrations of large groupings or trends’. Finally, most social history efforts tend to concentrate on local or regional studies rather than national ones (Stearns, 1983, pp. 6, 7). This trait may invite criticism from historians who promote synthesis, but as the late Herbert G.Gutman asserted: ‘Social history is local history but local history in a larger context that permits the careful examination of grand and sweeping hypotheses’ (1977, pp. 258-259). This linkage to wider social phenomena enhances its significance and
generalizability, allowing social history to avoid the label of ‘antiquarianism’ (Zunz, 1985, p. 60).
